User talk:TimeForTruth

Let me know!

Speedy deletion nomination of SOUNDKODE

Hello TimeForTruth,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged SOUNDKODE for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Exemplo347 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soundkode

Hi. For a start, the article has been deleted twice, first by me and then by RHaworth, who I see has moved it to a "Draft" for you. The original wording was highly promotional, and you don't seem to have addressed this problem fully, even if you did include better references. Deb (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deb - I created a new article using the Wizard, so the draft is created by me.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soundkode (April 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not satisfying the applied notability standards.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Soundkode and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soundkode (April 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheSandDoctor was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Soundkode and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! TimeForTruth, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Jamala

Note that you currently edit-warring at Jamala and also you removed my comment from the talk page providing a false reason. If you continue, your account will be blocked from editing. Thank you for understating.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both know this to be untrue. You completely deleted the conversation. I am not edit-warring, but you are.

You failed to show the diff, meaning you are blatantly lying. I did not delete anything, but you did.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why it was completely deleted when I came to the talk page and why you refuse to provide evidence of a previous discussion which is also no longer present on the page. It seems this is a trend for you. I had no reason to delete your entries. I wanted to discuss the issue. TimeForTruth (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing deleted, at least definitely not by me. I reported you at WP:3RRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it will be over soon, based even solely on the undecided archive. TimeForTruth (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to continue edit-warring. I reverted your addition, and at the next occasion, I will block your account per WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not. I have asked for 3rd party review via Wikipedia's standards. I will simply refute the block as I have done nothing wrong. TimeForTruth (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to check it is not under the third party review, was removed a month before you re-started the rant [1]. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refuted your block, as you are abusing your rights. I didn't revert the page, as you requested. TimeForTruth (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for WP:NOTTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TimeForTruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have done nothing wrong and followed Wikipedia guidelines. The user blocked me even without me violating a warning. To me this is nothing more than a user abusing their rights on Wikipedia. TimeForTruth (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is not the case you were blocked without a warning. Furthermore, you need to discuss your behaviour, not that of others. See WP:GAB. Yamla (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TimeForTruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not edit warring, though. I put the discussion under review and was unaware the case had already been solved. Then once warned, I took no further action and was blocked nonetheless. Again, I request to be unblocked. TimeForTruth (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not true. You were edit-warring. You continued to edit-war [2] two months after you were warned to stop [3], and two months after you were told the issue was already discussed [4] and consensus reached. Thus, your comments that you were unaware the case had already been solved and that once warned, [you] took no further action and was blocked nonetheless are simply lies. Also, you removed comments made by another user [5] from the talk page. After you were warned about that [6][7], you did not apologize or acknowledge your mistake, but started accusing other editor without any evidence ([8][9] (the part when you say "I had no choice" is particularly disturbing). Such behavior is not tolerated here. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TimeForTruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I explained I reverted those changes due to the fact I was unable to find previous reverts/addition or comments. It is clearly written on that page. And I have used no lies, as I was unaware the 3rd party review had been completed (I also explained this). I apologize if I misunderstood something, but it was never my intention to break wiki guidelines. TimeForTruth (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have made numerous statements which are clearly contradicted by observable facts. That includes some blatantly and obviously false statements, such as that you were blocked without warning, despite the fact that warnings of a likely block are still visible in the discussion immediately above the block notice further up this page. There are also numerous other claims that you did not now things which the editing history shows you did know, such as your claim that you were "unable to find previous reverts/addition or comments". That is absurd, as you even responded to messages pointing you to such comments. You say that you "used no lies"; if the numerous blatantly false claims you made were not lies then you are so unaware of what you are doing that you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. If that is so, then you should never be unblocked, because, while a liar may choose to stop lying, someone who doesn't understand what he or she is doing can't choose to stop. If you post another unblock request which completely misrepresents the truth in ways that anyone who spends one minute checking links can see is utterly false, then don't be surprised if your talk page access is removed to prevent you from wasting yet more time for administrators. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I feel my words are being misrepresented or misunderstood. If you take a look at the exchange, the user who blocked me stated, in our most recent exchange, "If you make further changes you will be blocked". After this point I made no further changes to the page, but I was blocked nonetheless. So, with all do respect, please do not call me a liar when I have not lied. TimeForTruth (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, I said I would block you for further reverts being under understanding that the case is indeed on the 3rd party review. Afterwards, I discovered that it is not on the 3rd party review, and this was enough for me to block you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TimeForTruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel my words are being misrepresented or misunderstood. If you take a look at the exchange, the user who blocked me stated, in our most recent exchange, "If you make further changes you will be blocked". After this point I made no further changes to the page, but I was blocked nonetheless. So, with all do respect, please do not call me a liar when I have not lied. I am merely trying to make Wikipedia more factual and have perhaps caused a problem due to being new here, but my intentions are not at all malicious. All of the information I have provided in all instances is indeed the truth - including the reason I made a talk page edit, as I really was not able to view all parts of the thread. I know Wikipedia is maintained and actions can be tracked, so I have no reason to make up a false narrative when everything is tracked; that would just be foolish.TimeForTruth (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You just refuse to admit you were disruptive. I'd recommend taking six months off and take the standard offer. I think you have made too many unblock requests, so I'm turning your talk page access off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please explain how you would handle such a situation if it were to arise again. Huon (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I would discuss and, if an agreement is not reached, I will bring in a 3rd party via Wikipedia guidelines. TimeForTruth (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Soundkode concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Soundkode, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Soundkode

Hello, TimeForTruth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Soundkode".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]